Roguelike vs Soulslike

[Julymorning]

In souls games you can finish the game with any weapon you are comfortable with. But in a roguelike you have to keep doing new runs until you get powerful ones. I played "Enter the Gungeon" and it is impossible to beat the game with starting weapon. Doesn't this sort of gameplay make you mad too?

[３:５５ ＰＭ]

I thougth for me it was perma death system, meant that you must face the boss and level again when you died but it fine as long it's rewarding, in GFD : UN they offer u godtier ukiyo e visual along with iconis boss.

[Varit Rockatansky]

You really like making threads eh

[Pastel Princess Kairi]

Originally posted by Julymorning:

In souls games you can finish the game with any weapon you are comfortable with. But in a roguelike you have to keep doing new runs until you get powerful ones. I played "Enter the Gungeon" and it is impossible to beat the game with starting weapon. Doesn't this sort of gameplay make you mad too?

In any Roguelike/lite I've ever played, you absolutely CAN beat the game with the starting equipment, it's just hard to do so...much like playing Dark Souls at level 1.

As far as I know, that's also the case for Enter the Gungeon.

[Snefru]

Originally posted by TheQueenLilith:

Originally posted by Julymorning:

In souls games you can finish the game with any weapon you are comfortable with. But in a roguelike you have to keep doing new runs until you get powerful ones. I played "Enter the Gungeon" and it is impossible to beat the game with starting weapon. Doesn't this sort of gameplay make you mad too?

In any Roguelike I've ever played, you absolutely CAN beat the game with the starting equipment, it's just hard to do so...much like playing Dark Souls at level 1.

As far as I know, that's also the case for Enter the Gungeon.

^ This is the correct answer

[SKN The LISPer]

Originally posted by Julymorning:

In souls games you can finish the game with any weapon you are comfortable with. But in a roguelike you have to keep doing new runs until you get powerful ones. I played "Enter the Gungeon" and it is impossible to beat the game with starting weapon. Doesn't this sort of gameplay make you mad too?

You're describing\talking about roguelites, not rougelikes. Enter the Gungeon is a rougelite.


Roguelike is an soft-protected genre that has a 'very' specific and strict genre definition, which games like Enter the Gungeon does not qualify for. Even one of my favorite games, Tales of Maj'Eyal, which is by far closer to a roguelike than Enter the Gungeon, is not one, it is a roguelite.

The criteria for a roguelike is as follows(ALL must be fufilled):
* Permadeath
* Procedurally generated levels
* turn based
* grid-based movement
* Role Playing(levels and stats, not the meta of "having a role").
* Non-modal(Meaning everything must be available at any-time, no unlockability, this is what disqualify Tales of Maj'Eyal).
* Complex systems that work to create emergent gameplay(such as ability to bash open a locked door, or pick it open, or burn it with fire).
* Resource Management(Secondary disqualifier of Tales of Maj'Eyal). Doesn't have to be survival, but some resources 'must' be scarce. Usually healing\recovery items.
* Hack and Slash(Game's entire purpose is combat, non-combat should not as a general rule, be available).
* Vague\Unidentified items that do not remain consistant between playtroughs(but consistant within it's own playtrough). For example, a green potion might heal in current playtrough, but the next one it'll poison you.



In anycase, in an ROGUELIKE, you absolutelly 'can' beat the game on your first playtrough, that's the entire point and criteria of roguelike. It's unlikely to happen, as you do not understand the mechanics of the game well enough, and you rely on the procedural generation working in your favor(which it often does not), but wether it's your 1st or your 35560th attempt. Nothing is different or have changed(beyond your knowledge and understanding of the game's mechanics).


RogueLITEs however(which you describe, again), it depends entierly on the roguelite. Some are designed completely with the idea you need to unlock certain boons to be able to finish the game, others are more similar to roguelikes. Tales of Maj'Eyal for example, ignoring the stash, give no actual benefits wether it's the 1st, or the Nth attempt. Though some classes(like the necromancer) is going to be easier to beat the game with.



Edit: I feel I should ammend this a bit and say, it's not really 'that' strict as I make it out to be. You can most definitely miss some of the requirements and still be a roguelike, my point is\was that it's generally a strict genre that has clear defining criteria. I made a follow up post further down that clarifies it a bit more.

[Julymorning]

how can a game be turn based and hack and slash at the same time

[Litton]

Originally posted by Varit the Lowly Tarnished:

You really like making threads eh

[SKN The LISPer]

Originally posted by Julymorning:

how can a game be turn based and hack and slash at the same time

The "hack and slash" in context to a roguelike is that the only objective and goal of the game, is to kill everything that you come in contact with, as you progress your way towards the end. Any quest you have, will and must feature combat.

I already specified this in the paranthesis?...


Though I feel I should ammend my previous statement a bit. You don't need to have 'all' the criteria, just most of them. So 'some' wiggle room exist, but not much.

Tales of Maj'Eyal 'is' a roguelike(no one would dispute otherwise), though by the strictest of definitions it is not. However the no-modal is optional in TOME(it offers the option to unlock everything immediately, though you need to google how), and not having resource-management is a 'minor' thing, and not enough to disqualify it by itself.

But at the lowest, these 4 points 'must' always be true for a roguelike:
* Permadeath
* Procedurally generated levels(At least for dungeons, overworlds do not 'have' to be procedurally generated).
* turn based
* grid-based movement

However, having these 4 does not qualify it as a roguelike, it is just the 4 that 'must' be there. If you're lacking 4 other points from the roguelike requirement list, it's pretty safe to assume it is 'not' a roguelike.


Another Example that doesn't fit all is Unreal World, it has:
Permadeath, procedurally generated world, turn-based, grid-based movement, role playing, non-modal, complex systems and lastly resource management(survival to be exact).

So it misses hack and slash(game's purpose is 'not' combat), and vague\unidentified items. As it only misses 2 (major) requirements, it is allowed the genre of roguelike.



Roguelite is a genre that was made to make exception to games that retain the 'spirit' of roguelikes(permadeath and high difficulty depending heavily on players skills\understanding of mechanics), but not actually have the feature requirements.


There are also minor feature requirements I didn't list, that can help weigh a game up to being a roguelike when missing major features(but excluding them do NOT disqualify a game what so ever). These are:

* Solo play(Only controlling one character, also must be offline).
* Equality between player and AI(both have access to the same abilities \ skills, etc).
* High tactical Difficulty
* ASCII graphics
* Dungeon exploration(not dungeon crawling, though dungeon crawling would de-facto qualify this).



So to use my othe two examples, ToME fits all of those(ASCII is optional), and Unreal World fits the first 3.




Essentially: roguelikes as a genre is 'complicated', and Steam is ♥♥♥♥ with user tags, lol.

[PeroxydHydrogen]

I finished enter the gungeon with the pilot pistol, case closed.

[FlintX]

Originally posted by SKN The LISPer:

You're describing\talking about roguelites, not rougelikes. Enter the Gungeon is a rougelite.

Roguelike is an soft-protected genre that has a 'very' specific and strict genre definition, which games like Enter the Gungeon does not qualify for. Even one of my favorite games, Tales of Maj'Eyal, which is by far closer to a roguelike than Enter the Gungeon, is not one, it is a roguelite.

The criteria for a roguelike is as follows(ALL must be fufilled):
* Permadeath
* Procedurally generated levels
* turn based
* grid-based movement
* Role Playing(levels and stats, not the meta of "having a role").
* Non-modal(Meaning everything must be available at any-time, no unlockability, this is what disqualify Tales of Maj'Eyal).
* Complex systems that work to create emergent gameplay(such as ability to bash open a locked door, or pick it open, or burn it with fire).
* Resource Management(Secondary disqualifier of Tales of Maj'Eyal). Doesn't have to be survival, but some resources 'must' be scarce. Usually healing\recovery items.
* Hack and Slash(Game's entire purpose is combat, non-combat should not as a general rule, be available).
* Vague\Unidentified items that do not remain consistant between playtroughs(but consistant within it's own playtrough). For example, a green potion might heal in current playtrough, but the next one it'll poison you.

Edit: I feel I should ammend this a bit and say, it's not really 'that' strict as I make it out to be. You can most definitely miss some of the requirements and still be a roguelike, my point is\was that it's generally a strict genre that has clear defining criteria. I made a follow up post further down that clarifies it a bit more.

lmao, several itens in this list are complete wrong.
Roguelikes games aren't bound to turn based, grid movement, RPG elements, or complete random item effects. This is nonsense.

Roguelike and Roguelite are almost the exact same thing.
The only difference between both is that ROGUELIKE has Permadeath and complete resets all progress when the player dies.
While in ROGUELITE the player is allowed to keep some sort of unlockables or upgrades that potentially can make every subsequent run a bit more easier than the previous ones. That's what the "LITE" means.

And that's it.
There is no such thing as one of the genres being tied to Real Time or Turn Based combat. This is ridiculous.

[CazadorDeLobo]

Originally posted by FlintX:

Originally posted by SKN The LISPer:

You're describing\talking about roguelites, not rougelikes. Enter the Gungeon is a rougelite.

Roguelike is an soft-protected genre that has a 'very' specific and strict genre definition, which games like Enter the Gungeon does not qualify for. Even one of my favorite games, Tales of Maj'Eyal, which is by far closer to a roguelike than Enter the Gungeon, is not one, it is a roguelite.

The criteria for a roguelike is as follows(ALL must be fufilled):
* Permadeath
* Procedurally generated levels
* turn based
* grid-based movement
* Role Playing(levels and stats, not the meta of "having a role").
* Non-modal(Meaning everything must be available at any-time, no unlockability, this is what disqualify Tales of Maj'Eyal).
* Complex systems that work to create emergent gameplay(such as ability to bash open a locked door, or pick it open, or burn it with fire).
* Resource Management(Secondary disqualifier of Tales of Maj'Eyal). Doesn't have to be survival, but some resources 'must' be scarce. Usually healing\recovery items.
* Hack and Slash(Game's entire purpose is combat, non-combat should not as a general rule, be available).
* Vague\Unidentified items that do not remain consistant between playtroughs(but consistant within it's own playtrough). For example, a green potion might heal in current playtrough, but the next one it'll poison you.

Edit: I feel I should ammend this a bit and say, it's not really 'that' strict as I make it out to be. You can most definitely miss some of the requirements and still be a roguelike, my point is\was that it's generally a strict genre that has clear defining criteria. I made a follow up post further down that clarifies it a bit more.

lmao, several itens in this list are complete wrong.
Roguelikes games aren't bound to turn based, grid movement, RPG elements, or complete random item effects. This is nonsense.

Roguelike and Roguelite are almost the exact same thing.
The only difference between both is that ROGUELIKE has Permadeath and complete resets all progress when the player dies.
While in ROGUELITE the player is allowed to keep some sort of unlockables or upgrades that potentially can make every subsequent run a bit more easier than the previous ones.

And that's it.
There is no such thing as one of the genres being tied to Real Time or Turn Based combat. This is ridiculous.

While there bears some purpose in arguing the distinction be made accurately, the tone you have just escalated to has greatly reduced the odds of the other person taking what you said seriously. You shouldn't just talk at someone if you want a discussion.

I say this because I would like to interject without being stomped on:

You're right.

[aplethoraof]

I'd honestly say that Roguelike and Roguelite aren't even really genres haha. Though I guess they can be used as descriptions.

They generally insinuate the following:
--Difficult gameplay
--Permadeath (soft or hard) - soft being with unlocks/progression and hard being without progression
--Usually the ones with worse graphics have very indepth systems
--Typically they are pretty well-made, since the gameplay loop is tried-and-true & easy to do for smaller/indie studios - so the devs can focus on tightening gameplay nicely.

That is it. That is what the label of "roguelike" or "roguelite" imply, in my mind anyway. It is useful in that sense, but anything beyond difficulty and permadeath and it is useless. I'm going off how I see them they are used, not how any theoretical definition states.

The way I see it:
--Hades, for example - is a twin-stick hack-and-slash with soft permadeath.
--ToME is an RPG with permadeath
--Unreal World/C:DDA/Project Zomboid/Caves of Qud are open world RPGs with permadeath
--KeeperRL is dungeon management game
--Rogue is a turn-based dungeon crawler RPG
--Enter the Gungeon is a shoot-em-up with soft permadeath.

There are better ways to describe these games than roguelike/lite.

[FlintX]

I'm simple correcting misinformation. And it has to be made in a rough way.

This is same kind of misinformation that someone hear on some Youtuber channel saying that Dead Cells is a "Metroidvania" or "Roguevania". So the guys go there all excited to buy the game, and then after they sees that it plays nothing like Symphony of the Night or whatever other Metroidvania out there, they proceed to bomb the game store page with bad reviews, cursing the devs, or create cringe threads in the forums. Complaining about something they are complete clueless about.

[SKN The LISPer]

Originally posted by FlintX:

lmao, several itens in this list are complete wrong.
Roguelikes games aren't bound to turn based, grid movement, RPG elements, or complete random item effects. This is nonsense.

Roguelike and Roguelite are almost the exact same thing.
The only difference between both is that ROGUELIKE has Permadeath and complete resets all progress when the player dies.
While in ROGUELITE the player is allowed to keep some sort of unlockables or upgrades that potentially can make every subsequent run a bit more easier than the previous ones. That's what the "LITE" means.

And that's it.
There is no such thing as one of the genres being tied to Real Time or Turn Based combat. This is ridiculous.

I'm going to take a wild shot in the dark, and assume you aren't a member of any roguelike communities. Roguelike community uphold these definitions because we do enjoy roguelikes(As in games 'like' rogue). Roguelite is our compromise.

It'd be like saying Diablo 2 is a soulslike, because you lose currency upon death...

Originally posted by aplethoraof:

I'd honestly say that Roguelike and Roguelite aren't even really genres haha. Though I guess they can be used as descriptions.

I'd say roguelike is a sub-genre of the RPG genre. Roguelite however, is more sub-genre to action games I'd say(there's no strict enforcing of it having to be an RPG).

[aplethoraof]

Originally posted by FlintX:

I'm simple correcting misinformation. And it has to be made in a rough way.

This is same kind of misinformation that someone hear on some Youtuber channel saying that Dead Cells is a "Metroidvania". So the guys go there all excited to buy the game, and then after they sees that it plays nothing like Symphony of the Night or whatever other Metroidvania out there, they proceed to bomb the game store page with bad reviews, cursing the devs, or create cringe threads in the forums. Complaining about something they are complete clueless about.

Metroidvania has the same problems as roguelike/roguelite. It would be like calling FPS' doomlikes, any sort of "this game like" makes for a poor way to describe a game. And it is honestly unfair, since it forces the devs to live in another game's shadow. IMO.

No wonder there is so much confusion around the terms, there has been years of development between rogue and modern roguelikes/lites, between metroid and castlevania and now modern metroidvania games. Of course they aren't going to resemble those games now.

Dead Cells is a non-linear hack'n'slash.